3 ms·

If it can be someone else, it can just as easily be you. Best to fight for each other as if its ourselves, or else it might be next time.

by jdiff 3y ago

Retric 3y ago
Except not everyone is going to make the same tradeoffs here. People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. I don’t mean this as a moral argument that they don’t deserve clean air, just that tradeoffs exist. Health isn’t always the top priority; many top athletes for example are very open about the long term negative consequences of reaching the absolute limits of human performance. The larger issue is the people impacted don’t necessarily get to make this choice themselves.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  >People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. How is it "rational" if that choice is figuratively (and sometimes literally) made at gunpoint? There's a reason every legal system considers contracts signed under duress to be null and void.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Duress isn't defined as "not having a lot of other great options".
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      >great options For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". If the "work" option also carries "allow your home to be polluted with deadly chemicals", then the "die" option also gets baked in. Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress?
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress? Sure. Duress requires an unlawful threat. Signing a contract to have a surgeon operate on you, when you will die if you don't get the operation, is not duress and the contract is enforceable. Not that I really buy this: > For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". The options are more like "continue subsistence farming with risk of death, or work in factory under marginally better conditions with lower risk of death".
        CapstanRoller 3y ago
        >Duress requires an unlawful threat. You can use this argument to defend slavery or any manner of horrible things because it was lawful at some point (and still is, in many places). Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? >continue subsistence farming with risk of death At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?
        mlyle 3y ago
        > Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? The alternative is terrible-- otherwise anyone with the ability to possibly help is compelled to do so at any cost without recompense. > At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent? That's the crummy thing with international law-- it's as each jurisdiction says. The unfortunate thing is, there's large portions of the world that are poor enough that taking risks with industrial effluent seem to make sense. If the increased prosperity lets you pay for wastewater treatment and health projects, you could save considerably more lives. The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity. The thing that is different now, of course, is that we have far more prosperous people looking on the sidelines. On the other hand, we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.
  - Retric 3y ago
    I am referring to a preference. As in given options A and B they would prefer option B, but I not suggesting they actually get to make the decision. That said, there are still some fairly poor democracies.

If it can be someone else, it can just as easily be you. Best to fight for each other as if its ourselves, or else it might be next time.

by jdiff 3y ago

If it can be someone else, it can just as easily be you. Best to fight for each other as if its ourselves, or else it might be next time.

Retric 3y ago

Except not everyone is going to make the same tradeoffs here. People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. I don’t mean this as a moral argument that they don’t deserve clean air, just that tradeoffs exist. Health isn’t always the top priority; many top athletes for example are very open about the long term negative consequences of reaching the absolute limits of human performance. The larger issue is the people impacted don’t necessarily get to make this choice themselves.

CapstanRoller 3y ago
>People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. How is it "rational" if that choice is figuratively (and sometimes literally) made at gunpoint? There's a reason every legal system considers contracts signed under duress to be null and void.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Duress isn't defined as "not having a lot of other great options".
  - CapstanRoller 3y ago
    >great options For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". If the "work" option also carries "allow your home to be polluted with deadly chemicals", then the "die" option also gets baked in. Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress?
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress? Sure. Duress requires an unlawful threat. Signing a contract to have a surgeon operate on you, when you will die if you don't get the operation, is not duress and the contract is enforceable. Not that I really buy this: > For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". The options are more like "continue subsistence farming with risk of death, or work in factory under marginally better conditions with lower risk of death".
      - CapstanRoller 3y ago
        >Duress requires an unlawful threat. You can use this argument to defend slavery or any manner of horrible things because it was lawful at some point (and still is, in many places). Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? >continue subsistence farming with risk of death At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?
        mlyle 3y ago
        > Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? The alternative is terrible-- otherwise anyone with the ability to possibly help is compelled to do so at any cost without recompense. > At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent? That's the crummy thing with international law-- it's as each jurisdiction says. The unfortunate thing is, there's large portions of the world that are poor enough that taking risks with industrial effluent seem to make sense. If the increased prosperity lets you pay for wastewater treatment and health projects, you could save considerably more lives. The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity. The thing that is different now, of course, is that we have far more prosperous people looking on the sidelines. On the other hand, we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.
- Retric 3y ago
  I am referring to a preference. As in given options A and B they would prefer option B, but I not suggesting they actually get to make the decision. That said, there are still some fairly poor democracies.